Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by omarrahim
The World As I See It by Albert Einstein
3.0
3 stars
Einstein was a great scientist, but a sub-par philosopher.
I, like most Americans, grew up hearing the wondrousness and ingenuity of Einstein. I figured that this genius ability would translate over to his political and philosophical beliefs. Unfortunately, Einstein's writings here read like something of a layman's understanding of the world. I understand that his intended audience was not a highly technical elite, but I do think that in these speeches and essays he tends to come off as out of his depth.
I do think Einstein had good intentions with the things he wrote. He genuinely wanted world peace and genuinely detested nationalism. Though, I do think there are holes and contradictions in his view of the world; this results from a lack of knowledge in the complex subject of international relations. Einstein argues fervently for a world government. I don't necessarily disagree with him—I just think he's preaching to the choir and has no actual idea of how to resolve international disputes. His calls for cooperation fell on silent ears; history has shown us at least this much. I'm currently reading Essays in Humanism and it seems to demonstrate a more fleshed out understanding of the international system (perhaps he grew a little wiser during the wartime years).
There are a couple things that Einstein says in the book that rubs me the wrong way. He speaks of "civilized people", while omitting any discussion of the implied "uncivilized people". His (often Eurocentric) knowledge of history, such as the notion that one man discovered fire, is outdated and reeks of modernist oversimplicity. Furthermore, he appears to believe that more centralized societies are on a "higher level" than decentralized societies.
I'd like to take a moment to mention Einstein's perspective on Zionism. I did not go into the book knowing that Einstein was a Zionist. While I don't agree with his stance, I do think he has a more tempered and conciliatory approach to the Jewish Question than other prominent Zionists. I actually like that he emphasizes the shared cosmopolitan history of Palestine and encourages cooperation among the indigenous Arabs and the settling Jewish population. Despite this, I can't seem to shake the obtuse colonialist language he uses in his writings.
This quote is one of many that implies Palestine was underdeveloped and would greatly benefit (read: White Man's Burden) from the Western immigrants coming in and setting up a more centralized social system. He repeatedly refers to Palestine as a project of "construction" that must be undertaken. In his view, he saw this as beneficial to Arabs and Jews. While this may have been true in some narrow contexts, it is the same argument made by the British, the French, the Americans, the Belgians, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Germans, and the Dutch in their abhorrent colonial endeavors. We can see from the eventual political outcome that Einstein's language here is no exception, and instead stands in line with the rest of the colonial history. He even uses the word "colonizing" to describe the Zionist effort in Palestine. What's more, even though he spends the entire book trashing nationalism and arguing for its dissolution worldwide; however, when it comes to "Jewish nationalism"—as he puts it—he makes an exception because he fears that without it they would live among "intolerant, narrow-minded, and violent people". This is one moment where Einstein's ignorance of international politics shines through his words; for if it wasn't his nation, he would've been all for the elimination of nationalism. What Einstein failed to realize in his political writings was that the argument for Jewish nationalism is not any different than the argument for French, German, American, English, or Arab nationalism. All nationalism is a perceived effort to preserve (in Einstein's words) a "race's...dignity and health".
I did enjoy Einstein's meditations on science and religion (to an extent), and I think he did have good ideas for the world and properly used his platform to communicate them. He, like all other humans, was a product of his time; we must analyze and study him from that angle. I think he was a great figure with an externally-imposed inflated sense of importance.
Einstein was a great scientist, but a sub-par philosopher.
I, like most Americans, grew up hearing the wondrousness and ingenuity of Einstein. I figured that this genius ability would translate over to his political and philosophical beliefs. Unfortunately, Einstein's writings here read like something of a layman's understanding of the world. I understand that his intended audience was not a highly technical elite, but I do think that in these speeches and essays he tends to come off as out of his depth.
I do think Einstein had good intentions with the things he wrote. He genuinely wanted world peace and genuinely detested nationalism. Though, I do think there are holes and contradictions in his view of the world; this results from a lack of knowledge in the complex subject of international relations. Einstein argues fervently for a world government. I don't necessarily disagree with him—I just think he's preaching to the choir and has no actual idea of how to resolve international disputes. His calls for cooperation fell on silent ears; history has shown us at least this much. I'm currently reading Essays in Humanism and it seems to demonstrate a more fleshed out understanding of the international system (perhaps he grew a little wiser during the wartime years).
There are a couple things that Einstein says in the book that rubs me the wrong way. He speaks of "civilized people", while omitting any discussion of the implied "uncivilized people". His (often Eurocentric) knowledge of history, such as the notion that one man discovered fire, is outdated and reeks of modernist oversimplicity. Furthermore, he appears to believe that more centralized societies are on a "higher level" than decentralized societies.
I'd like to take a moment to mention Einstein's perspective on Zionism. I did not go into the book knowing that Einstein was a Zionist. While I don't agree with his stance, I do think he has a more tempered and conciliatory approach to the Jewish Question than other prominent Zionists. I actually like that he emphasizes the shared cosmopolitan history of Palestine and encourages cooperation among the indigenous Arabs and the settling Jewish population. Despite this, I can't seem to shake the obtuse colonialist language he uses in his writings.
"The opportunity is presented to us of setting up centers of civilization which the whole Jewish people can regard as its work. We nurse the hope of erecting in Palestine a home of our own national culture which shall help to awaken the near East to new economic and spiritual life."
This quote is one of many that implies Palestine was underdeveloped and would greatly benefit (read: White Man's Burden) from the Western immigrants coming in and setting up a more centralized social system. He repeatedly refers to Palestine as a project of "construction" that must be undertaken. In his view, he saw this as beneficial to Arabs and Jews. While this may have been true in some narrow contexts, it is the same argument made by the British, the French, the Americans, the Belgians, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Germans, and the Dutch in their abhorrent colonial endeavors. We can see from the eventual political outcome that Einstein's language here is no exception, and instead stands in line with the rest of the colonial history. He even uses the word "colonizing" to describe the Zionist effort in Palestine. What's more, even though he spends the entire book trashing nationalism and arguing for its dissolution worldwide; however, when it comes to "Jewish nationalism"—as he puts it—he makes an exception because he fears that without it they would live among "intolerant, narrow-minded, and violent people". This is one moment where Einstein's ignorance of international politics shines through his words; for if it wasn't his nation, he would've been all for the elimination of nationalism. What Einstein failed to realize in his political writings was that the argument for Jewish nationalism is not any different than the argument for French, German, American, English, or Arab nationalism. All nationalism is a perceived effort to preserve (in Einstein's words) a "race's...dignity and health".
I did enjoy Einstein's meditations on science and religion (to an extent), and I think he did have good ideas for the world and properly used his platform to communicate them. He, like all other humans, was a product of his time; we must analyze and study him from that angle. I think he was a great figure with an externally-imposed inflated sense of importance.